updated 02:50 pm EST, Thu February 24, 2011

Intel says Apple leads Thunderbolt until 2012

Intel at its Thunderbolt preview event in San Francisco on Thursday said that Apple effectively had the technology to itself for the next year. The 10Gbps spec wasn't exclusive to Apple, but the semiconductor firm didn't expect other computer builders to have it until early 2012. It was up to them to decide when to leap in, Intel said.

Other companies won't get the developer kit for Thunderbolt until the spring, giving Apple at least several months' lead time. Hardware specifications will be tied to the kit and won't be published publicly, Intel said. Only Intel makes the needed controller chip.

Getting Thunderbolt first represents a major coup for Apple, which has had only a relative handful of unambiguous advantages in the Intel era. Most of its focus has been on getting special or early processors as well on improving on existing technology, such as long battery life or SSD integration. Thunderbolt may now give it a clear speed edge for any external storage, even trumping USB 3.0 and external SATA.

The venue gave Intel more of an opportunity to detail how Thunderbolt works and how it can work in the future. Daisy-chaining could involve a Cinema Display or other DisplayPort screen, but only if the device is the last on the chain. Both optical and electrical cables will work, but the features they allow vary wildly. The wired connection supplies the expected 10W of power but can only go up to three meters (9.8 feet) in length. Optical cables, since they only transmit light, don't supply power but can go up to "tens of meters," Intel said. Optical cables are due later in the year.

If needed, it can work for boot devices but needs a computer with appropriate firmware. It's not clear if the new MacBook Pros support booting from a Thunderbolt-equipped drive.

The technology only supports 10Gbps for now, but it already has scaling built in, according to Intel. Where a current Thunderbolt link is two lanes, it can work with as many as two lanes in each direction, scaling up to 20Gbps symmetrically or 40Gbps if all traffic flows in one direction.

While at the gathering, Intel took the opportunity to show Thunderbolt in action, streaming four 1080p, 10-bit encoded videos from a prototype Promise RAID drive attached to a MacBook Pro. The technique also showed very fast Final Cut Pro rendering while daisy-chained with the Promise drive, a prototype LaCie drive and a Cinema Display.

bunch of losers

All those other computer makers, just sitting on the sidelines, waiting for someone to tell them what they need to add. They're probably wasting their time putting in USB 3.0, eSATA, and all these other stupid ports that work with people's current hardware and peripherals.

Apple knows better. Why waste time giving people something that is useful today when they can offer up a new port that will become useful in a year or two. By then, of course, it'll be time for a new computer. But what should that matter, right.

Thunderbolt is only an advantage to Apple if

there are peripherals for it. And it's not like corporations are going to applaud Apple for having some fast transfer port since Apple computers aren't going to be running servers. I think it's a fine way to transfer data, but in this case, a head-start doesn't mean very much. Apple should have tried to get better GPUs instead of this Thunderbolt. Nearly all Mac users would have been able to use faster graphics. I doubt that most users will be dumping their older external drives to use Thunderbolt drives.

what?

We have this...The 10Gbps spec wasn't exclusive to Apple, but the semiconductor firm didn't expect other computer builders to have it until early 2012. It was up to them to decide when to leap in, Intel said.

and then this....

Other companies won't get the developer kit for Thunderbolt until the spring, giving Apple at least several months' lead time.

How could they have leapt in if they couldn't get the developer kit until spring?

Getting Thunderbolt first represents a major coup for Apple,

Well, it's only a 'coup' if it ends up giving them an advantage in the next year. If there's only a few lighteningbolt products out there by 2012, it's not much of a coup except in the "Well, Apple had it first!" space.

Thunderbolt may now give it a clear speed edge for any external storage, even trumping USB 3.0 and external SATA.

But this is only going to be useful for external RAID storage, which doesn't really cover many people. When those would complain about lacking USB 3.0 support, the argument for Apple was "Why? Drives don't even use the current bandwidths!".

Same cry babies when Apple...

comment title

"Optical cables, since they only transmit light, don't supply power but can go up to "tens of meters," Intel said. Optical cables are due later in the year."

Since the optical cables would use the same Thunderbolt ports, it seems logical that a hybrid optical/copper cable could be developed which has the increased length and higher speed advantages of optical data transfers but also powers peripherals via copper.

Remember...

... when the original iMac came out in 1998 and it had - oh horror - USB ports, although there were virtually no USB devices around to connect to it (apart from that EPSON printer that had the same bondi blue color)? Everybody else was still using serial and peripheral ports.

Advantage

While the Jump start is perceived as an advantage - I disagree. Only being available on the newest laptops means there is not a huge market for peripheral devices. If Thunderbolt was available on a wide range of devices, there would be incentive to make abundant and cheap Thunderbolt devices. As for now, expect the hard drives to be ridiculously overpriced compared to their counterparts.

Although, being a video professional, I am excited for the future of this port, and look forward to what it can bring for mobile editing!

Comments...

I think that some people are missing the point and power of Thunderbolt. As it effectively extends the PCI Express bus outside the computer, it is now possible to expand a laptop in ways previously only possible with a desktop machine. This is a game changer in terms of how many machines a pro-user needs. This could truly be the innovation that kills the desktop. Plug your laptop into just about anything you can think of at home or unplug and go. I have been singularly non-plussed with Apple's lack of innovation (in the computer space) over the past five years but this is as significant as the original iMac. Firewire, USB, SDXC and Thunderbolt. Normally, what Apple gives with one hand it takes with the other. You win something and lose something else. With the option of matte screens also, these are the best new laptops in years. As noted in a related post, I am a bit suspicious about heat issues in the 13", but that's the only caveat.

Actually, it's smart

It's the perfect port for a creative industries. I can see this being a boon for AVID systems, audio hardware, graphics tablets, video interfaces, hardware accelerators, HiRes cameras, local networking apps, and on-the-fly storage transfers. This is the market that Apple is trying to court. Otherwise why wouldn't they go straight to optical? I hear the next version of Final Cut Pro is going to be a big upgrade... let's see.

A bit of a hedge

If you've been following the whole Lightpeak discussion, you'll know that until today it was unclear what kind of connector it was going to use. Intel first tried using a hybrid USB like connector but got flack for that.

So, Apple jumps in and offers up the mini DisplayPort connector in exchange for backwards compatibility. It's not a huge risk for Apple if Thunderbolt doesn't take off - because they're already committed to DisplayPort (and the mini connector) - the only real issue is the cost difference of including the Thunderbolt chipset in these MacBook Pros (which already have a healthy margin). So not much downside if Thunderbolt doesn't take off (at the rate USB 3.0 is coming out they can afford to wait and see if it takes off).

The upside is of course what everyone else is saying above. So, it's really a win-win for Apple.

USB

Thunderbolt and USB are two completely different things, the only thing they have in common is that they both send and receive data. A VGA port does that. Would you compare USB with VGA? USB is dumb technology, it is a master-slave system. This is what set Firewire apart from USB as it is a peer-to-peer technology. This should be obvious from the fact that the plugs are different at each end of a USB cable but the same at each end of a Firewire cable. USB requires something "smarter" at one end. USB is to Firewire what VHS was to Betamax, an inferior technology popularized by lower cost. USB can't daisy-chain, hence the proliferation of "hubs". Again, it is not just the speed of Thunderbolt but the protocols it uses and the fact that it is fully symmetrical. Please STFU about comparing Thunderbolt with USB. It's like comparing beef with bananas. The only thing they have in common is that they're both edible.

Google

No doubt Google will get scared and develop their own "open" technology... they will give it some feminine name like Doughnut and Fandroids everywhere will say its the next greatest thing while putting down Apple as if their life depended on it.

Everyone
Copies
Apple

I only wish you could put multiple displays on this technology. A Macbook Pro running 2 27" LCDs (without some dumb Matrox device that doesn't work) would be awesome.

Please confiscate the belts and shoelaces ...

... from the Apple haters. Otherwise, things may take a tragic turn. Thunderbolt has turned out to be much more than most of us could have dreamed of. Judging by the comments here, it is more than the haters can handle.

Re: Remember...

... when the original iMac came out in 1998 and it had - oh horror - USB ports, although there were virtually no USB devices around to connect to it (apart from that EPSON printer that had the same bondi blue color)? Everybody else was still using serial and peripheral ports.

People were lamenting just like you guys are now.

No, people were NOT lamenting that USB was added to the iMac. What they lamented was that Apple took off ALL the other ports from their computer. Thus, if you had any older peripherals, you could NOT use them with an iMac, unless you could find an adaptor.

And there were other USB peripherals out there, since USB had been on PCs for a year or two.

OK, let's try to be clear here. This was developed by INTEL. It is NOT an Apple technology. Will others implement it? I'm sure they will, because Intel really wants people to use it (since they're the only ones making the chips for it).

Intel wants to dump on USB because, even though they developed it, they no longer control it. They have control over LightPeak now.

I only wish you could put multiple displays on this technology. A Macbook Pro running 2 27" LCDs (without some dumb Matrox device that doesn't work) would be awesome.

You can. You just would need, at worst, two ports. Since most graphics cards can run two monitors, you just need the connectivity for them to talk. If one port can only handle one monitor, than another port should be able to feed a second one.

Re: USB

USB is dumb technology, it is a master-slave system. This is what set Firewire apart from USB as it is a peer-to-peer technology.

What does Firewire have to do with this discussion? That's dead tech as much as USB is (actually more so).

USB requires something "smarter" at one end. USB is to Firewire what VHS was to Betamax, an inferior technology popularized by lower cost. USB can't daisy-chain, hence the proliferation of "hubs".

USB3 fixes many of USBs early issues, including the overhead problems. And I've many a device that has two usb ports on them, one for input, one for output. Seems like chaining to me (oh, right, it's probably some hub or something, so it 'doesn't count' or something.)

Again, it is not just the speed of Thunderbolt but the protocols it uses and the fact that it is fully symmetrical.Please STFU about comparing Thunderbolt with USB. It's like comparing beef with bananas. The only thing they have in common is that they're both edible.

Yeah, but you're comparing Thunderbolt to Firewire based, apparently, that they both allow daisy-chaining.

Testudo Nostradamus

Well...

I remember sometime last year there were rumors of Apple showing a lightpeak implementation in it's products by 2011, and our dear testudo laughed saying there was no way it could be done in that timetable.

And I thought that after stepped on his big tong, he would remain silent on the subject, but seems that's not the case... silly me.

One can only hope, for his own sake, that he doesn't make a living of predicting the future!

Re: Testudo Nostradamus

Wow, I picture some guy sitting at his desk writing the same post over and over again, as if he were some genius. Must be tundaman.

I remember sometime last year there were rumors of Apple showing a lightpeak implementation in it's products by 2011,

Revisionist history. There were never rumors of Apple showing a 'lightpeak implementation' in 2011. There were rumors of Apple adding Lightpeak to their computers in 2010. And then all those disappointed people just moved it up a year.

But the rumor was of LightPeak, as designed. Not some implementation of LightPeak.

And what good is having an implementation when no one else has any products? Seems like Apple and Intel rushed this out as some "Look what we got!" kind of thing, then hoping all these others will follow along.

Just to point out, so far very few (if any?) monitor makers have gone the MiniDisplayPort route yet. I know, apple was just so far ahead of the curve on that one. Soon enough, though, right.

Certainly helps that they got Intel to use their port design for this, so they can make it seem like it was a huge hit.